From: Generic (wbadger@psyberlink.net)
Date: Tue Dec 22 1998 - 14:21:58 MST
Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> Max M wrote:
>
> > From: Timothy Bates <tbates@bunyip.bhs.mq.edu.au>
> >
> > >Flynn argues that we cannot be more intelligent (he sees no signs of it)
> > >and that therefore the tests are to be viewed as rather distant
> > >indicators of general ability.
> > >
> > >There are a range of other interpretations, most simply, there are two
> > >main alternatives.
> > >
> > >1. Average IQ HAS increased ...
> > >
> > >2. The tests have been made less valid as all children now have 7 years
> > >of head start at macdonalds ...
> >
> > It could also be simply that since the IQ test has become the meassurement
> > tool, the education system has been directed toward acheiving how to improve
> > the scores in the IQ tests. The education has simply become more focused on
> > teaching what is relevant for a high IQ-test score.
>
I'd be curious to see if anyone has examined the Flynn effect in terms of the
subscales of instruments used. The Wechsler IQ tests have several subscales and
indices, as does the Stanford Binet. Did population means increase over time for
all or just some of the subscales?
Scott
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:05 MST